SUO: Re: powerpoint presentation with corrections
Robert,
Ok, sorry I misunderstood you apparently. I posted your slides on Thursday.
Adam
At 11:07 AM 8/10/2001 -0700, Robert E. Kent wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I plan to go ahead. This will let people openly express themselves, and give
>us a record of people's opinions that we can reference in later discussions.
>
>There are 49 PowerPoint slides in my SUO Workshop presentation, which I sent
>you to be posted. Some of these slides illustrate by example the connections
>(dependencies) between the 3 levels in the IFF Foundation Ontology -- the
>object level, with the content ontologies (containing terminology for,
>amongst other things, events, physical objects, etc), the lower metalevel,
>which is the part of the metalevel (non-categorical terminology!!!) visible
>from the object level, and the upper metalevel, which is seen only by the
>lower metalevel.
>
>There were comments and concerns at the SUO workshop about intimidating
>users with category theory terminology. But as I commented at the workshop,
>and have repeated above, the terminology visible to the user is that
>introduced in the domain ontologies, and the foundation terminology visible
>to the content ontology developer is that terminology introduced in the
>lower metalevel -- terms such as 'subtype', 'expression', 'model',
>'1st-order interpretation', etc. This is normal semantic terminology, but
>not category theory terminology. The category terminology is introduced in
>the upper metalevel, and this is seen only by the lower metalevel. Compare
>the dependencies in Figure 1 "IFF Foundation Ontology (with dependencies)"
>of the document [http://suo.ieee.org/Kent-IFF.pdf].
>
>Robert E. Kent
>rekent@ontologos.org
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Adam Pease" <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
>To: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>
>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 8:40 AM
>Subject: Re: powerpoint presentation with corrections
>
>
> > Robert,
> > By the way, do you plan to go ahead with your motion to make IFF a
> > "starter document", or withdraw it until you can show a connection between
> > it and events, physical objects, etc as was discussed at the workshop?
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > At 01:02 PM 8/8/2001 -0700, Robert E. Kent wrote:
> > >Adam,
> > >
> > >I noticed during my PowerPoint presentation of "The IFF Category Theory
> > >Ontology" at the SUO workshop on Monday that one of the slides was
> > >corrupted. Here is a new copy of my presentation (~340KB) with
>corrections
> > >made. Thanks. Good talking to you. I had fun.
> > >
> > >Robert E. Kent
> > >rekent@ontologos.org
> > >
> >
> > Adam Pease
> > Teknowledge
> > (650) 424-0500 x571
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571